pink_tutusfandomcom-20200214-history
PInk TuTu's Wiki
Welcome to the PInk TuTu's Wiki The Miracle 1980 U.S Ice Hockey Team winning Gold Group Members and their individual topic: Stephen - Team Cohesion or team building Carolyn - Arousal and motivation Sean - Psychology of injury, impact on team and individual Tawnya - Leadership and coaching style from a coaches perspective Here it is gang... I have proofed mine. Just add what you want in the abstract so I can print it out for all of us... Also, if you used any other references, please add them The Analysis of Miracle Tawnya Gerold Stephen Lowery Carolyn Schroeder Sean Degn Central Oregon Community College J. Cruickshank Abstract This paper examines Walt Disney’s (Ciardi, M., Gray, G. & O’Connor, G., 2004) interpretation of Herb Brooks, who lead the 1980 USA Olympic hockey team to a gold medal. Coach Herb Brooks demonstrated a style of leadership that was innovative and motivating in an unorthodox manner. The analysis of Herb Brooks’ methods for reaching the common goal of an Olympic gold medal is compelling study of the interaction of a multidimensional model of sports leadership. As a successful coach, his controversial techniques were considered atypical and punitive. Coach Brooks’ unique leadership style was quite possibly the only method of coaching that would take his team meritoriously to the gold medal round, where he once again effectively imposed his controversial leadership style, motivated by his past, and supported by his coaching staff. The story of this journey, based in truth, is the ultimate rise to the apex of performance. The Analysis of Miracle Walt Disney's movie, Miracle (Ciardi, M., Gray, G. & O’Connor, G., 2004) tells the story of the 1980 US Olympic hockey team's journey to gold. The story begins with the United States Olympic committee interviewing Herb Brooks as part of the selection process for the position of head coach. Herb Brook was a 3 time NCAA Championship title winner at the University of Minnesota, as well as a member of the 1960 US Olympic hockey team (with history confirming he played on 3 US Olympic teams, being last cut from the 1960 team). During the hiring interview, Herb's personality and leadership style was immediately made clear as he defined the failures of previous attempts to beat the Russians, and explained his plan for success. This introduction to an orthodox coaching style became clear as he educated the USOC of his recently implemented, Soviet – Canadian hybridized style of playing, and the suggested scheduling of games. This unique approach was what Herb professed to be the only method for beating the reigning Russian champions after his extensive analysis and research. When the USOC baulked at Herb's plans to reinvent their style of play, he didn't back down, and instead gave his own critique of the previous failure of the US All Star team. And, this began the journey of Herb Brooks and his team of "unknowns" to the Olympic where they capture the hearts of America and the gold medal. Upon his appointment, Herb Brooks became the self-prescribed leader for the US Olympic hockey team. The skill, experience, and talent of Mr. Brooks quickly demonstrated his trait approach to his leadership style, showing a stable, intelligent, assertive, independent, and self-confident leader. Herb Brooks was the key to the team’s success, but his methods were unconventional at best. Herb facilitated motivation in a punitive fashion, and provided a unique sense of direction in the pursuit of excellence. He took the responsibility solely upon himself to accomplish everything he needed to be effective, to gather, and to provide the resources to lead his team to the ultimate goal of an Olympic gold medal. Herb Brooks told the USOC what it would take to create a winning team. From changing the style of play, to arranging a different play schedule, from staffing to recruiting, Herb demonstrated the role of manager, as well as coach as defined by Weinberg & Gould (2007). His first undertaking was to recruit his coaching team, calling Craig Patrick and Doc, to help create the much needed coaching balance he envisioned. Then he poured himself into films, studying the Russians, his recruited players, and all the competitors that stood between his team and Olympic gold. He dissected every element of the game, and applied his knowledge to select the right players. As a result, Herb educated himself totally and with such certainty that he assumed the role of manager, as well as coach, and dismissed all input from the USOC. By the first practice, Coach Brooks has chosen his staff, his strategy, his players, and ultimately a new exhibition schedule that would expose his players to the international teams and the unfamiliar intensity of Russian hockey. Taking on all the aspects of leading this team made Herb Brooks an autocratic leader, who was task oriented on the specific situation of the Olympics (Weinberg & Gould, 2007). After selecting the 26 players at the first cut, Herb Brooks stepped into the role of head coach, and introduced himself to his team. He created the environment that began the psychological training, imposing pressure on the players who remained. As he greeted his newly selected team, Coach Brooks told the players that the ones that were cut were “getting off easy.” (Ciardi, M., Gray, G. & O’Connor, G., 2004). He informed them that there are still 6 players to be cut from the roster so that each of the players understood the implication, and that they could expect to be pushed even harder than they have ever played before. He introduced his coaching staff, and told the players, “I am your coach. I am not your friend. If you need one of those, see Coach Patrick or Doc.” (Ciardi, M., Gray, G. & O’Connor, G., 2004). With that statement of detachment, Coach Brooks was able to be demanding, directing behaviors in a way that emphasized the task, and the performance, but not the individuals. Because Herb Brooks was not coaching youth sports, he could be a disciplinarian for the greater good, for a common goal, and for this one unique situation. Coach Brooks would rate poorly with the Categorized Behavior Assessment System (CBAS) categories (Weinberg & Gould, 2007). Although he did respond to desired performances, he addressed the mistakes of his team with punishing tactics. He never missed a mistake, but was not always forthcoming with immediate corrective instruction. His reactive behaviors met every category of assessment, but his spontaneous behaviors were often not spontaneous, but were strictly organizational. The supportive coaching staff was responsible for the positive spontaneous behaviors that kept the morale of the team from imploding. Between the coaching staff, there was a balance. The “Good Cop, Bad Cop” equilibrium was found between Herb and Craig, while Doc played mediator and facilitator that helped everyone move toward their goal with a greater understanding. Good coaching models emphasizes positive, non-punishing instructive behaviors in order to keep a team working together. Instead of creating this positive, encouraging environment, Coach Brook gave his players psychological questions that immediately touched off frustration in the group. Miracle (Ciardi, M., Gray, G. & O’Connor, G., 2004) depicts this as a one time, 300 question assessment. This test is the first of many that Herb uses to get the most out of his team. This first test provide the necessary information for him to know exactly how far to push his players. It also provides Coach Brooks with insight into how far the team will be prepared to go to reach their ultimate goal. A multi-dimensional model of sports leadership (Weinberg & Gould, 2007) begins to unfold, with the situation and the leadership behaviors becoming interrelated in a manner that leads this team to a stellar performance and eventual gold medal glory. This model of leadership is based on the complex interaction of situational, leader, and member characteristics (age, personality, and coaching style) of the staff and the team. It also is composed of personal factors such as age, ability, and gender of organization, with key situational factors being experience and values. There is a direct link between these antecedent conditions and the three aspects of leader behavior appropriate for the situation: required, actual, and preferred. These three aspects of leader behavior, for the given situation, must match the team’s expectations in order for them to achieve the best performance with the ultimate satisfaction. This is where Herb Brooks excelled. Coach Brooks adhered to a task oriented style of leadership, and instilled his team with the necessary expectations to accomplish the desired task. He imposed a prescribed behavior that was in keeping with the expectations. The integration of leadership styles, situational factors and team member characteristics brought about significant growth in the players. The team accepted Coach Brooks’ leadership styl,e and accepted their roles required to reach their goal. This interaction was imperative to become the functional, successful unit that achieved Olympic gold (Weinberg & Gould, 2007). Coach Brooks demonstrated leaders’ qualities: integrity, flexibility, loyalty, confidence, and honesty. He was highly prepared and extremely resourceful. He had self-discipline and held himself, his staff, and his players to the highest of standards for their training and competitive goals. As an outstanding and successful coach, Brooks had an autocratic leadership style, taking responsibility for all decisions, providing purpose and direction while focusing on the mutually desired task of Olympic gold. The situational factors reinforced his leadership style with the pressure of the limited time frame in an interactive sport. Coach Brooks continued to improve each and every one of his players by learning from his leadership experiences, as he pushed the team to their personal best. Because the Olympic opportunity comes only once every four years, and each opportunity has a different team climate as a result of different players, coaches, and environments. This once in a lifetime event created a circumstance that will never occur again. According to Weinberg & Gould (2007), this unique set of conditions is the major contributing factor for the success of this very untraditional coaching and extremely critical leadership style. Herb Brooks, being a devoted student of the hockey, set what was considered to be “lofty goals” for himself and his team. He used a combination of psychological tactics and an innovative coaching predicated on speed and constant motion to defeat the Russians that would almost guarantee a gold medal. After a physical and mental assessment of his team, Coach Brooks put into play a style of leadership that utilized the interaction between the coaching staff and players. The leader behaviors capitalized on the antecedents, the specific situation, and the future goal. This enhanced the player’s mental strengths, and elevated their level of play. Coach Brook adhered to a task oriented style of leadership, instilling his team with the necessary expectations to accomplish the imposed task. Ultimately, the team’s acceptance of Coach Brooks’ leadership and coaching style paved the way to Olympic gold. Maintaining a healthy level of arousal is imperative to any sport. Hockey, however, may take a different and much more intense approach to reach that desired level of arousal. Arousal, as defined by Weinberg and Gould, “is a blend of physiological and psychological activity in a person, and it refers to the intensity dimensions of motivation at a particular moment” (p.77). The aggressive nature, high intensity situations, and fast-paced play in the game of hockey set a different standard for arousal level. Most players are continually at a high level of arousal, a level that in other sports may be detrimental to performance. Coach Brooks knew this from experience in coaching, as well as playing, and set this high level of arousal immediately. On the first day of the week long try-outs for the 1980’s U.S. Olympic hockey team, Coach Brooks chose 26 players to continue on, and sent the remaining two-thirds home. You can see relief and accomplishment on the faces that belong to the names he calls, the disbelief in those who had to walk away. He welcomed them with stern words and no smiles, reminding them that only 20 of the remaining 26 would continue on as a team. He wanted to instill a minor level of anxiety within his players, ensuring they knew how to handle the upcoming level of state anxiety, or constantly changing emotional and physiological state (Weinberg & Gould, p.78). This type of “arousal conditioning” was especially important as they faced off against the World Champions of almost 20 years. To achieve this efficient level of arousal is difficult for both the players and the coaching staff. The state anxiety that accompanies high arousal levels must be facilitative (Weinberg & Gould, p.91). A player needs a certain level of arousal to find the motivation to complete their task or perform well. However, if a person’s healthy arousal is overcome by the physical and mental burdens of stress and anxiety, the arousal level is now inhibiting the performance of the athlete. This is the idea of the inverted–U hypothesis (Weinberg & Gould, p.86-9). You can see this during the climax of the U.S.-Soviet game as the Americans take the lead. The goalie gets so impaired by his levels of arousal he cannot execute his job to the best of his abilities. His stress levels and anxiety cause him to lose focus of the entirety of his purpose and his performance suffers (Weinberg & Gould, p.89). Instead, players must find and maintain a mid-range arousal level that helps their performance. The coach knew that the continuous, high-level arousal would not only prepare the players for the surmounting levels of anxiety they would face while competing against the best in the world, but also provide a sense of team unity. At one of their first games, Coach Brooks found the team with a low and misdirected level of arousal. The players played poorly, focused their attention on unrelated issues, and in turn, lost the game. After executing an unbelievable amount of athletic punishment, the coach decides to bring in a “decoy player.” He lets the team believe that one of their positions is at risk. This ignites the team’s arousal level, and instills a better sense of team cohesion amongst the players. Arousal level has an important role individually and as a team, in practice, and competition. From too much arousal comes stress. The coach continued to create a highly stressful environment throughout practices and pre-games with the intention of lessening the intensity of the stress at the Olympic Games, especially while playing arch-rivals, the Soviets. Athletes are less likely to be affected negatively by high levels of stress, if they have been exposed to high levels of stress regularly (Weinberg & Gould, p.287). Many in the movie thought it odd that Coach Brooks scheduled the U.S. team to play the Soviets just three days before the opening ceremonies. The coach knew, however, that this would help his team in many ways. It would give them a sense of familiarity when they opposed them at the Olympics, and expose them to their style of play and intimidation. More importantly, if any of his players were going to reach the debilitating level of anxiety, they would do it at this game, not in the Olympics. This, with the high arousal training put them in a good psychological stand point to play in the best in the world. References Ciardi, M., Gray, G. & O’Connor, G. (Producers), & O’Connor, G. (Director). (2004). Miracle Picture. United States: Walt Disney. Weinberg, R. S. & Gould, D. (2007) Foundations of Exercise and Sports Psychology, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 203-221. oom Interview|thumb|right|335 px]] Slide1.JPG|Slide 1 Slide2.JPG|Slide 2 Slide3.JPG|Slide 3 Slide4.JPG|Slide 4 Slide5.JPG|Slide 5 Latest activity Category:Browse